About this Show

Book TV

Patricia Aufderheide Education. (2013) 'Reclaiming Fair Use How to Put Balance Back in Copyright.'

NETWORK

DURATION
00:20:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17 (141 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

U.n. 21, U.s. 10, Us 6, Washington 4, Obama Administration 3, Mrs. Thornton 2, United States 2, D.c. 2, Van Buren 1, Jackson 1, Roadwaysed 1, Kenneth Anderson 1, Sayer 1, Switchy 1, Bolton 1, Betweening 1, Arthur Bowen 1, Clinton 1, Iraq 1, China 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV    Patricia Aufderheide  Education.  (2013)  
   'Reclaiming Fair Use How to Put Balance Back in Copyright.'  

    February 25, 2013
    1:40 - 2:00am EST  

1:40am
during much of her period at the u.n. has been an ambassador to the u.n. who is liked by the u.n. bureaucracy by the other ambassador. there has been a strong sense that she sees the capitol of the world -- capital but not in turtle bay in washington, d.c. she spent much of her time during the first term in washington, and i think there's a sort of weird sense that bolton hated the institution but engaged with it. a granular level in which the attitude from the obama administration has been we love the institution. we have got our own sort of thing going on. i think it's a very open question at this point. which of the two ambassadors by implications, which of the two administrations is actually sized up and sorted of priced the u.n. more accurately.
1:41am
the one that engages with it in order to sort of really make sure that it doesn't do anything the u.s. doesn't like or one which apparently on the surface has more love for it. at the same time it's disengaged. it's not fair for ambassador rice. her engagement is where it should be. she's living day and night in the accident occurty council that's where she should be. i think that those probably warfare criticism during the first two to three years of the first barack obama term. >> host: when has the u.s. sought u.n. legitimacy? >> guest: most of the time as a per let to actions that it was planning on taking anyway. so in iraq, we saw legitimacy for something the entire world knew we were going do no matter what. i would say that the u.s. seeks
1:42am
a less contentious program which is -- [inaudible] peace keeping operations in places in the world where we can't operate others and put our people at risk. and yet, both for reasons of our interest and values and ideals. we think it would be a good idea if somebody on the ground to maintain amenable oil. i think we see u.s. legitimacy for purpose where our -- >> host: and you write in the book living with the u.n., yet there's a remarkable disconnect betweening voting behavior of countries in the general assembly or block voting by region and ideological group reigns and the country's foreign relation with the u.s. >> guest: yes. how countries in the u.n. is a o- casually and in the security counsel most often an indicater of the true interest.
1:43am
they tend reflect accurately on the security counsel where the interest was. in the general assembly, the u.n. internal dynamic. the closed circle of the universe takes over. we have many u.s. allies scattered across the second and world in latin america and other places that are close allies on many things. yet in the u.n. they will continually vote with the large third world blocks against us on all sorts of things. that's partly because they perceive a value in kind of a stance which puts pressure on the united states to take account of them to sort of take them seriously as a nay sayer can only talk. but talk has some not a lot of influence. and second, because we, for our part, the united states does not feel that it's worth extracting
1:44am
through pressure or -- [inaudible] in their real place per se. in the capital city. and the diplomacy with them and real life with them. in substance of how they behave at the u.n. we don't think the u.n. is that important. we don't wind up forcing them to take account of our positions on things many of which matter us. at least in the general assembly. we don't think it's worth the price we have to pay and the real world relationship with them in their own country. and we don't -- it means there's a disconnect between how we and our allies behave at the u.n. versus what our frequently far better relationships are directly in the capital. >> host: who are the new liberal realists you talk about in your book? >> guest: the obama administration came in split between two quite different
1:45am
camps. in the foreign policy. on the one hand you had a waive of people that i would describe typical describe liberal international. people believe in the mission of the u.n. to not just be the kind of diplomatic table where everybody negotiates and argues and debates and let's their views be known. something which is supposed to take on applicable governance and take on -- [inaudible] and we the united states have traditionally have been suspicious of that and lib call, conservative, it doesn't matter. rethe world's hedge we are not going exceed that authority to the united nations. there was a significant chunk of the incoming foreign policy establishment to obama administration that didn't lead this and saw this as a way forward. at the same time they were counter balanced off by a wing
1:46am
of the democratic party and the obama administration and i would say really by the secretary clinton. of new liberal realists who looked at the bush idealism. we caw it -- call it knew owe conservativism. it's the conservative form of idealism about democracy and transforming countries about making things better by doing lot and lots of these things. and more or less concluded that was just not going work. and that we needed to retrench and become more realist in our approach to foreign policy. so i describe this the new liberal realists because they saw themselves as rejecting the neoconservativism. it involved a essentially rejecting a lot of the liberal international stuff they regarded as kind of soft and squishy. and regarded in the same way
1:47am
that the conservativism realists would regard it. and that tendency is very special in one particular way. the bush realists conservative realists tend to take words very, very seriously. they think that words have ways of coming back to bite you. and so one of the features about bolton about the bush realists was there, very careful negotiables on foreign sports. if you are the liberal international' dealist, soft, switchy. whatever you want. the lot -- commit united to an endless number of things that probably can't come through on. if it were the bush administration when it had the wing, the realist --
1:48am
[inaudible] what characterizes liberal internationalist thinkers of the democratic party and the obama administration is they are not bothered by the words especially at all. because they think basically you can ignore them. we can do like any other country and find any document put in front us. we are biggest player on the planet and we will ignore as the other countries do. they find an endless number of documents and below them off. and what is striking about the united states is we don't find that many documents because we tend take them more seriously. so new realists characterized by the strange, i would say strange bleach that you can find things and ignore them and have no consequences for you. i wouldn't say that the risk is
1:49am
presented by this wing is not the realism. st a realism is that -- by half. it beliefs it can have the cake and eat it top. that can find endlessly idealistic documents and do whatever it feels like push coming to shove. i think that's a huge mistake. i think that the power of words is actually much more bipedding and influential than roadwaysed. they are things that one comes to find and will discover they have not so much bound one down the road but as scarier risk. talk with the preexisting condition. our friends are not treating us
1:50am
as merely cost free exercise and symbols. our friends particularly in asia are looking at this and close allies and saying if they're willing to talk a line that says anything to anybody. to we actually trust them the way we have traditionally trusted the americans? that mens one sentimental thing. if more comes to the asian pacific will the u.s. be there? and if you believe down to your core that the u.s. will be there, that does more to deter war with china, and all other party than anything else. the moment you believe the u.s. didn't believe the own even symbolic statements you start thinking about that much harder. i would say the class between the new liberal realist and the idealist within the obama administration has been fantastically costly to the u.s.' long-term position. not because the realism is wrong
1:51am
because it's realism that believes it can have if all ways. have the cake and eat it too. it can say whatever it wants and ignore opportunity road. >> host: what is your background? >> guest: a law professor hered at american university. i teach a combination of both business law and actually don't really teach international law courses and public international law. i'm a visiting fellow at the hoover institution in california and a nonresidence senior fellow here at the brookings institution in washington, d.c. mostly national security. the book i'm proud to say was published by the hoover institution press. and i have a background that is somewhat crazy. i have a background in finance and business and tax law and that sort of stuff. and earlier in my career i was a
1:52am
long time non-profit law that sort of stuff but also as the general counsel to the george foundation, the open society substitute before becoming a professor. i drifted to the right to have to say something. and before that i was actually the director of the human rights arms division. so i have a another career in non-profit stuff but sort of a long background in transactional business practicing or things. a lot of which involved develop finance and international go on issues. one of the thing i enjoyed about the book is a chance to write a chapter in a general take on the u.n. but addressed specifically the development issues that many of the sort of the international relgts scholar don't understand and comfortable taking up. they are areaings i've been involved with for a long time. so as for the personality i do a lot of national security stuff.
1:53am
and very much remitted to drones and targeted killings and counterterrorism and those kinds of things. on the other hand i have business and non-profit background in these kinds of imrairs as well. currently my fascination is robots. >> host: well. when you hear the term "one role government" what do you think? expwhrg i break out in hives. i think it's not possible. i think it's not desirable. what i think most relevant to that is a belief that it's desirable and that one should be working toward that actually cripples the u.n. more than any other thing. i say in the book that the u.n.'s biggest enemy turn out to be the biggest believer.
1:54am
the people who drewly believe the u.n. is sort of over time going become the flowererring role with the government. what they do is put the u.n. in the position of being a unruly bad child who always has to be excused because of the potential what it might turn in to. you can't hope u.n. truly too accountable because of the fact so you to excuse it because you look down the road and say it might become this. they lose the opportunity. and i don't think it's becoming that. it i continue think a chance of becoming that. the better thing for the u.n. as an institution is simply renounce all of that kind of forward-looking nonsense, frank lip. ly and focus on the u.n. not
1:55am
becoming a flowererring. but instead think of i.t. as a series of low, sturdy that had the particular task taking as much of the politics out of the performance as possible and make it a tech karattic institution. that is a whole. for the -- these parts to see themselves as not on a train track trying to get to the future point where it becomes something different from what it is now. if you say this is what we are and we are going to live or be a political organization.
1:56am
that is good and important. we poison the well by demanding we become something different. >> host: we are talking with kenneth anderson. thank you, professor anderson. >> thank you. i appreciate this. booktv on facebook. like us to interact with booktv guests and viewers. watch video and get up to date information on events. facebook.com/booktv. here's a look at the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country.
1:57am
please let us know about book fairs in your area. post them at facebook.com/booktv. or e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. arthur goes on trial of december of 1835. he's eager to win a conviction.
1:58am
by this time mrs. thornton has come forward and come to the defense of her allegedly asal i can't. she said in the trial that arthur never lifted the action. ax. she felt safe in his presence. that he was just drunk and that she wanted the whole thing to go away. he was in plaqueble. he didn't listen. he managed to get other people to override the testimony. arthur is convicted and there's only oneishment for that, which is the death penalty. capital punishment. and so arthur bowen goes on to death row, and in january of 1836 sentenced to die in a month. and so with the clock ticking mrs. thornton does something even more unbelievable. it was amazing enough that she
1:59am
had testified on arthur's behalf in the criminal trial but now she starts recruiting her friends in high society of washington that she was very prominent woman with many prominent friend. easy access to the leadership of the country. she went to the vice president van buren and said use your good office with the president jackson. tell him he should pardon arthur, you know, his mother is very good. as she said, you know, the execution would be worse that night crime. and that she couldn't contemplate that arthur would be executed. he objects and unmoved and so the clock keeps ticking. you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. at age 25 one of the waitest widow and during the revolution,